A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Great find! That explains Lessans' dumbfuck hypothetical about God turning on the sun, in which we see the sun immediately but no light reached our eyes for 8+ minutes.

It's also further proof of peacegirl being a bit fat liar (not that we needed more proof of that).

No, it just means that you're not smart enough to understand the first thing I'm talking about. Did you ever consider that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it just means that you're not smart enough to understand the first thing I'm talking about. Did you ever consider that?

Actually, it shows you don't know what you're talking about, or what your father actually said. You are unable to separate Lessans' claims from your own additions and reinterpretations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, it would be an anomaly because the contingencies you're talking about would never be powerful enough to prevent conscience from working at full throttle. A person would have to be severely mentally ill for their conscience not to control their behavior under the changed conditions. If for any reason that would happen, they would be put in a hospital just like they are today. But these isolated cases would be few and far between, if any, and would not be enough to stop this new world from coming into existence.

Your original analogy was "If someone knows the distance to a certain destination and the rate that he will be traveling, he can determine how long it will take to get there. "

In the real world there are accidents and traffic jams and road work and unexpectedly long bathroom breaks etc. etc. What Angakuk was pointing out is at best we can estimate about how long it should take us to get there.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Great find! That explains Lessans' dumbfuck hypothetical about God turning on the sun, in which we see the sun immediately but no light reached our eyes for 8+ minutes.

It's also further proof of peacegirl being a bit fat liar (not that we needed more proof of that).

I don't think that's entirely fair.

In fact, we don't have proof that she's a big, fat liar.

She could be a little, skinny liar instead.

We'll have to wait until all the data are in before we can say for sure.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No

Yes. You're a fraud, just like your worthless fuck of a grandmother and your dumbass small-man-desperate-to-be-a-great-man father.

Are your children craven liars as well?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your original analogy was "If someone knows the distance to a certain destination and the rate that he will be traveling, he can determine how long it will take to get there. "

In the real world there are accidents and traffic jams and road work and unexpectedly long bathroom breaks etc. etc. What Angakuk was pointing out is at best we can estimate about how long it should take us to get there.

That's true, but all those things don't stop a person from getting to his destination, even with these unexpected stops. How are you relating this to the book? Are you saying that these unexpected inconveniences will stop the new world from coming? He even wrote about this in Chapter Eight.

Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part.

With this in mind I
shall demonstrate, in a completely undeniable manner, His infinite
wisdom as we observe how the most perfect relations between married
couples offers them the very happiness they are desperately seeking.
Someone asked me in the course of conversation, “How can you
know this when years hence their feelings might change towards each
other?”

I answered by asking him a math problem. “How long would it
take a car traveling at 60 miles an hour to travel 98 million miles?
Sixty times 24 hours equals 1440 miles; 1440 miles, which represents
one day, will divide into 98 million 64,583 days; 365 days will divide
into that approximately 176 years.”

“But how can you know this when the car wouldn’t arrive until
176 years later? Supposing the car broke down, had a few flat tires,
and maybe the driver wouldn’t live that long?”

We’re assuming that the car travels at an average speed of 60 miles
an hour, so even if there were several flat tires and several drivers had
to be changed it would still take approximately 176 years. You are
able to do this simply by extending mathematical relations. I am
going to do the same thing with this married couple. I am going to
set up mathematical conditions that will force them (of their own free
will or desire) to prefer traveling the full length of their lives together
without ever desiring to commit adultery or get a divorce, and they
will be given no choice because they will want what they see. Is it
possible for a person not to want what he wants or, to phrase it
differently, not to desire what he desires? But in order to accomplish
this we must first uncover the irreparable harm that can occur when
couples see each other through a distorted lens which creates the
illusion of reality. So, once again, let us return to Chapter Four,
Words, Not Reality.

[LadyShea]

There are any number of things you can't account for when speaking about something like conscience, which is individually developed in each person. Especially when discussing over 6 billion individual people with their own versions of conscience.

[ceptimus]

Another study that indicates pigeons can recognize human faces. This one was carried out on wild untrained pigeons in Paris, France.

[Vivisectus]

We are still stuck with the elephant in the room, which is the question of conscience.

We have no evidence in the book. We do not even have a clear case in favour of it working that way. It is merely claimed that it works that way, and then the rest of the book goes on as if it has been definitively established that it is so.

The book promises that everything in it is a logical progression, as "undeniable" as basic arithmetic. But that does not seem to be the case: I can check if 1 + 1 = 2 by counting. I cannot check if conscience works as described in the book without implementing the whole system as described in the book.

You said that the author was able to see that conscience works this way by "observing patterns", "astute observations", and because he was "incredibly in tune with what was going on in the world".

What reason do we have for believing that this is the case? Can you make a case for it at all, or is this another thing we will just have to believe?

I have asked you several times now but no answer seems to be forthcoming. Am I to draw the conclusion that you simply do not know?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Another study that indicates pigeons can recognize human faces. This one was carried out on wild untrained pigeons in Paris, France.

I love these studies. They keep going against my expectations: I would not have expected pigeons to be able to do that, not in a hundred years. I would have expected them to react tot he lab-coat. How extraordinary!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans made a completely false statement in this passage.

Do you admit he was wrong, or do you admit you are a lying weasel?

So, Lessans seems to agree with the dictionary definition of sense, and then goes on to state that this definition does not apply to the eyes....
because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

He clearly thought that the eyes were different anatomically and functionally. He seemed to think the eyes did not contain receptors. They do. He seemed to think NOTHING from the external world entered the eye. When you added (except for light) you made it make even less sense, because you negated the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses.

Explain what Lessans thought was the difference between the sense and the eye, using ONLY LESSANS WORDS and not your additions

How absolutely glorious! Wonderful!

The Holy Book already has shown evidence of being edited by a different author. And to make it even better, it is being edited because the editor has an agenda: she is involved in a polemic that seems very important to the editor at the time, but which later readers would be unaware of. It makes the Holy Book read slightly awkwardly in places, almost self-contradictory. That is because the addition to the book is there to deal with an argument about the book that the original author was not aware of, and neither are most readers today.

But then, someone clever finds the different versions and works out what the reason for the addition would have to have been and all is revealed. Lady Shea, you now get to name the different authors of the holy book. Of course in this case we know exactly who they are, but we could still stick with convention and call them the (L) and (P) authors?

The theory about it's authorship will now of course be named the Shea Hypothesis. It is so strongly supported as to almost guarantee it will dominate the concensus opinion, and your name will go down in history as the first ever Lessans Scholar of Critical Lessans Analysis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually, it shows you don't know what you're talking about, or what your father actually said. You are unable to separate Lessans' claims from your own additions and reinterpretations.

How do you know what I'm doing Spacemonkey? You have no understanding of these principles whatsoever.

[LadyShea]

From last May

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He did not say what he meant then, and what he did say was demonstrably wrong. Not unlike his molecules of light. Are you going to change his incorrect statement about no afferent structures like you changed molecules to photons?

[LadyShea]

One year ago (the discussion below is from Oct 2011) she claimed to have not added those words at all....that she "found them" sometime between then and now

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. That was his sentence whether you believe it or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Another study that indicates pigeons can recognize human faces. This one was carried out on wild untrained pigeons in Paris, France.

Maybe they detected patterns (I am skeptical of these tests as you well know), but to make the leap and say that a pigeon would recognize his handler, or any bird for that matter, without other cues, is farfetched.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One year ago (the discussion below is from Oct 2011) she claimed to have not added those words at all....that she "found them" sometime between then and now

Throughout this writing, I have been very careful not to change important details. That is an important detail.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans made a completely false statement in this passage.

Do you admit he was wrong, or do you admit you are a lying weasel?

So, Lessans seems to agree with the dictionary definition of sense, and then goes on to state that this definition does not apply to the eyes....
because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

He clearly thought that the eyes were different anatomically and functionally. He seemed to think the eyes did not contain receptors. They do. He seemed to think NOTHING from the external world entered the eye. When you added (except for light) you made it make even less sense, because you negated the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses.

He never said that the eye didn't contain receptors. He didn't say that nothing entered the eye because he said that light strikes the optic nerve. If it strikes the optic nerve, the nerve must be relating something to the brain. I don't get your last sentence at all. Where did I negate the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Explain what Lessans thought was the difference between the sense and the eye, using ONLY LESSANS WORDS and not your additions

I used Lessans' words Vivisectus. The only difference is the senses are receiving and transmitting external stimuli to the brain. He did not believe that light has the same properties as other external stimuli because patterns don't travel through space and time, so how can light work like the other senses? How can we interpret an image if there is no pattern to be interpreted?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How absolutely glorious! Wonderful!

The Holy Book already has shown evidence of being edited by a different author. And to make it even better, it is being edited because the editor has an agenda: she is involved in a polemic that seems very important to the editor at the time, but which later readers would be unaware of. It makes the Holy Book read slightly awkwardly in places, almost self-contradictory. That is because the addition to the book is there to deal with an argument about the book that the original author was not aware of, and neither are most readers today.

What are you talking about Vivisectus? There is no addition to the book that the author didn't know about? And the book is not self-contradictory.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But then, someone clever finds the different versions and works out what the reason for the addition would have to have been and all is revealed. Lady Shea, you now get to name the different authors of the holy book. Of course in this case we know exactly who they are, but we could still stick with convention and call them the (L) and (P) authors?

Oh my god, what additions? I added a few examples that I was very honest about.

Please note that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is in reference
to the time period when this discovery was first uncovered. This book
was meant to be read through the eyes of the author. His prediction
that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the
hope that a thorough investigation would have already taken place.
Although it has been more than 50 years since this prediction was
made, there has been no such investigation and, as of yet, this
discovery remains unknown. Due to the time lapse since the book’s
last printing the editor has added some recent examples to show how
these principles apply to our current world situation, but please be
assured that the actual discovery has not been altered in any way and
is explained in the author’s own words. For purposes of consistency
the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No
discrimination was intended.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The theory about it's authorship will now of course be named the Shea Hypothesis. It is so strongly supported as to almost guarantee it will dominate the concensus opinion, and your name will go down in history as the first ever Lessans Scholar of Critical Lessans Analysis.

Right, and maybe her hypothesis will be proven to be as biased and factually inaccurate as the very writing she's trying to condemn.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are any number of things you can't account for when speaking about something like conscience, which is individually developed in each person. Especially when discussing over 6 billion individual people with their own versions of conscience.

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings, and if that is the case, changes in the environment which this law of our nature produces, will cause a major change in what our conscience will permit.

[LadyShea]

Did you find it in the original source material yet? Just admit you added it after you started having discussions online and realized what a glaring mistake he made...just like you changed molecules to photons.

Also, are you going to admit he made a mistake when he said there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye?

I don't trust your memory at all...the whole thing about the drug you were prescribed proved it is unreliable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Throughout this writing, I have been very careful not to change important details. That is an important detail.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings

I understand that you believe that because Lessans said it. What you seem to not understand, though we keep asking you to explain and support it, is that neither Lessans nor you have given anyone any valid reason to believe that is true at all.

Why should we think conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings? What support do you have for that, either evidence or argument?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From last May

He did not say what he meant then, and what he did say was demonstrably wrong.

No it was not, and you're not going to get away with this retort.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not unlike his molecules of light. Are you going to change his incorrect statement about no afferent structures like you changed molecules to photons?

Do you have any idea what you're saying LadyShea? You're trying to equate the fact that he didn't use the "right" word in scientific terms with a wrong analysis. You can't do that, so stop trying.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans made a completely false statement in this passage.

Do you admit he was wrong, or do you admit you are a lying weasel?

So, Lessans seems to agree with the dictionary definition of sense, and then goes on to state that this definition does not apply to the eyes....
because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

He clearly thought that the eyes were different anatomically and functionally. He seemed to think the eyes did not contain receptors. They do. He seemed to think NOTHING from the external world entered the eye. When you added (except for light) you made it make even less sense, because you negated the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that the eye didn't contain receptors.

He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons. He was wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say that nothing entered the eye because he said that light strikes the optic nerve.

Not originally he didn't. You added that. Originally he said

because nothing from the external world strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't get your last sentence at all. Where did I negate the only difference Lessans thought existed between the eyes and the other senses?

By adding "other than light" you negated the point he was making. He was clearly saying that the eyes didn't receive stimuli from the outside world, and that there were no sensory neurons in the eye. He stated it plainly! The one time he was clear as crystal, you start re-interpreting and adding words

This shit about traveling images/patterns is a strawman. It is stupid and incorrect. You've stated how many times that you understand that images don;t travel, so why do you revert to it every 5 seconds?

Sound doesn't travel, taste doesn't travel, odor doesn't travel. Light travels. Chemical compounds travel. Soundwaves (vibrations) travel. The external stimuli all travel.

Light is an external stimuli that is received by specialized afferent receptors in the eye. According to the definition Lessans accepted of a sense organ, the eyes are a sense organ.

Light is different than chemical compounds which are different than air vibrations. Each receptor is specialized to interact with a specific stimuli. So if the eyes aren't a sense organ, than neither are any of the other sense organs.

Where is this big difference in the eyes you seem to think exists?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can we interpret an image if there is no pattern to be interpreted?

This is gibberish...once again you are using the stupid strawman of traveling images, except you've changed it to patterns.

The light that is received by the photoreceptors is interpreted into an image. Just as the vibrations that are received by the mechanorecpetors in the ear are interpreted into sound, and the chemical compounds received by the chemoreceptors in the nose are interpreted into odors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, what additions? I added a few examples that I was very honest about.

You added the words "Other than light" which changed the whole meaning of Lessans explanation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I understand that you believe that because Lessans said it. What you seem to not understand, though we keep asking you to explain and support it, is that neither Lessans nor you have given anyone any valid reason to believe that is true at all.

I'm asking you to read the book (do you think it's fair that you won't take the time to read a 600 page book so that your facts are correct?). Conscience will allow horrible despicable behavior if there is a justification for it, and there are ways people can justify and rationalize their behavior. But when these justifications and rationalizations are no longer possible because of this new condition that has been introduced into the environment, behavior takes a different turn and because of this conscience takes a different turn, an amazing turn because it will not allow someone to hurt another without a justification for doing so.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why should we think conscience works in a very predictable way in all human beings? What support do you have for that, either evidence or argument?

There is a tremendous amount of support for this. Lessans was right in that conscience, like human beings, are controlled by preestablished laws. If you look carefully you will see that everyone who does something to hurt someone has a reason for it, whether that reason is justified in our minds or not. That's not the point. The point is that the justification in his mind is valid, which gives him the freedom to strike back. If there is no hurt to him that he can justify this retaliation, he cannot hurt others helter skelter. He can't do it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it was not, and you're not going to get away with this retort.

Do you have any idea what you're saying LadyShea? You're trying to equate the fact that he didn't use the "right" word in scientific terms with a wrong analysis. You can't do that, so stop trying.

LOL, that discussion was from last May. Just admit he made a mistake, already. He said there were no afferent nerve endings in the eye. There are many of them. He was wrong.

He thought light was molecular in structure...there is more than just a semantic difference between molecule and photon. They are not remotely the same thing, at all. Get real.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm asking you to read the book (do you think it's fair that you won't take the time to read a 600 page book so that your facts are correct?). Conscience will allow horrible despicable behavior if there is a justification for it, and there are ways people can justify and rationalize their behavior. But when these justifications and rationalizations are no longer possible because of this new condition that has been introduced into the environment, behavior takes a different turn and because of this conscience takes a different turn, an amazing turn because it will not allow someone to hurt another without a justification for doing so.

There is a tremendous amount of support for this. Lessans was right in that conscience, like human beings, are controlled by preestablished laws. If you look carefully you will see that everyone who does something to hurt someone has a reason for it, whether that reason is justified in our minds or not. That's not the point. The point is that the justification in his mind is valid, which gives him the freedom to strike back. If there is no hurt to him that he can justify this retaliation, he cannot hurt others helter skelter. He can't do it.

Where is the support? All you are doing is asserting that it is so.

I counter that conscience develops in individuals over time just as personality does, and so remains unpredictable and very individual. I can support this by showing you that every human has slightly different ideas about right and wrong, and feel different degrees of guilt about different things.